YAZAKI INDIA P LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAZAKI (I) LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee emanates from the final assessment order dated 23-01-2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

made by the AO u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act for payment of

Administrative Support service charges.

manufacturer of integrated harness and electrical distribution

system for the automotive industries. It manufactures wiring

harnesses for various segments of the automobile industry

including passenger cars and commercial vehicles. It also supplies

wiring harnesses for applications such as air bag assemblies. The

assessee filed its return declaring Nil income. During the course of

assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee paid a

sum of Rs.2,96,50,650/- as Administrative service charges to its

holding company TACO – one of the Joint Venture partners

having 50% of shares. He further noticed that approximately

similar amount was paid as Royalty to the other holding company

– Yazaki Corporation, Japan having remaining 50% of shares.

There is no dispute in this appeal as to the payment of Royalty.

The assessee was called upon to justify the payment of

Administrative service charges amounting to Rs.2,96,50,650/- to

TACO. The assessee submitted that it received support services in

various areas, such as Marketing, Human resources, Finance,

3 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

Infrastructure etc. which helped it in carrying on its business

efficiently. A further elaboration of such support services was

given in detail. The AO noticed that the assessee entered into an

agreement with TACO in the year of its incorporation in 1998.

TACO was providing services at start-up phase and also operating

phase. The assessee had reimbursed all the expenses incurred by

the TACO for getting professional services from outside sources.

In addition, the assessee was incurring all the administrative

expenses, like, Advertisement, Sales Promotion, Audit fee, Internal

Audit fee, Conveyance, Staff Welfare etc. The AO further noticed

that the fees payable by the assessee to TACO was fixed at a

percentage of total turnover which caused serious doubt as to its

genuineness. The assessee was asked to produce details of services

and documentary evidence for the services availed from TACO

and their reasonable market price, who submitted certain details.

In this backdrop of facts, the AO held that the assessee either did

not avail any services from TACO or these were in the nature of

stewardship services. He made disallowance for the full amount

paid at Rs.2,96,50,650/- u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act, against which

the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

4 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

material on record. The AO has recorded in the order that the

assessee entered into a similar agreement for availing such services

in the year 1998. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is

continuously availing such services from TACO and no such

disallowance has ever been made in the past. Be that as it may, we

have gone through the contents of the Administrative Services

Agreement (ASA) valid for the year under consideration which

was entered into on 23-03-2007, whose copy is available at page

286 onwards of the paper book. Article 2 of the ASA narrates the

services to be rendered by TACO to the assessee which are as

under:-

“a. Support for Land Acquisition and Development. b. Support for Payroll and benefit Administration (Provident Fund, Superannuation, Gratuity) c. Support for Liaison with Banks and Financial Institutions. d. Support for Legal and Taxation services e. Support for Human Resource Development & Training facilities f. Communication Infrastructure advisory services g. Support for manpower recruitment h. Support for maintaining Industrial Relations i. Support for providing Marketing and Distribution Network j. Support for liaison with Government Authorities k. Support for Vendor development efforts”

5 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

as an amount equal to 5% of Net Processing Fees of all products

processed, assembled and manufactured. The term “Net

Processing Fees” has been defined under Article 1 to mean the:

`Company’s invoiced prices for the Products less material and

components, less packing and warehouse charges, taxes and duties

to the extent set forth on the invoice.’ On going through Article 2

of the ASA, it is borne out that TACO agreed to provide support

services to the assessee in various fields, such as, Administration,

Financing, Legal, HRD, Marketing and Distribution, Liaison with

Government authorities and Vendor development etc. Our

attention has been drawn towards e-mail correspondence between

TACO and assessee, copies of which have been placed at page 305

onwards of the paper book. Page 305 is an e-mail from Sh. G.K.

Ramesh of TACO to Sh. Sudheendra Mudikeri of the assessee

company in respect of certain corrective actions to be taken for

NC’s. It has further been warned that: `If the activities are not

completed, we may lose the EMS certificate’. Page 306 is an e-

mail of R.S. Thakur of TACO to Sh. Prashanth Nayak of the

assessee company on Audit report. In this e-mail also, certain

concerns have been raised about material consumption variance.

6 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

Page 312 of the paper book is an e-mail under which scope of

internal audit of the assessee company has been approved by the

audit committee. It has been emphasized that the same needs to be

started as soon as possible. In the same fashion, such e-mails of

correspondence between the assessee and TACO are going on from

pages 305 to page 422 of the paper book. Pages 423 to 429 are

copies of extracts of the Minutes of the Board of Directors’

meetings held on 08-07-2008 and 30-09-2008 substantiating

receipt of Administrative Support services. On page 424 of the

paper book, the Board of Directors in their meeting held on

08-07-2008 discussed about framing of Copper Hedging policy on

the basis of initial trials and discussion with the TACO. Page 425

records minutes of meeting of Board of Directors held on

30-09-2008 discussing status of action points in which there is

reference to the help received from TACO. Item at sr. no.15 of the

Minutes of the Board meeting is that: “The Board was informed

that the company management had received directives from TACO

to be followed while deciding the prices of new models with the

customers” so on and so forth. As against the AO’s recording that

the assessee did not furnish any evidence of services, we find that

the assessee did furnish such details to the AO, which is fortified

7 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

by the assessee’s letter dated 19-02-2013 addressed to the AO,

whose copy has been placed at page 299 onwards of the paper

book. In this letter, it has been mentioned that the assessee

submitted several documents in respect of receipt of services from

TACO, such as copies of e-mail communications, copies of

invoices, extracts of the minutes of meetings of Board of Directors

held on 08-07-2008 and 30-09-2008. In view of the aforesaid

factual panorama, it is manifest that TACO did provide

administrative support services to the assessee, for which there is

ample evidence. The impugned order is overturned to this extent.

made by the assessee to TACO for such services @5% of Net

Processing Fees is reasonable or at prevalent market rates? We

have noticed above that Net Processing Fees has been defined in

the ASA itself to mean Invoice prices for the products less Material

and components, less packing and warehouse charges, taxes and

duties to the extent set forth on the invoice. A copy of the

assessee’s Profit and loss account has been placed at page 197 of

the paper book, which shows amount of Sales for the year under

consideration at Rs.225.29 crore. There are Material costs of

Rs.168.80 crore; Employees cost at Rs. 20.79 crore and other

8 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

expenses. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 2.96 crore towards

Administrative Support services, which comes to around 1.31% of

Sales.

other related concerns as well. He submitted that the AO in some

of such cases made similar disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act,

which issue has since been decided by the Tribunal. He drew our

attention towards a copy of the order dated 09-12-2015 passed by

the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Tata Johnson Controls

Automotive Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1450/PN/2011). In that case,

TACO rendered similar services to Tata Johnson Controls

Automotive Ltd. The AO disallowed the entire amount. The ld.

CIT(A) allowed 25% of such expenditure. When the matter came

up before the Tribunal, it ordered to delete the entire addition. In

that case, the remuneration was paid to TACO @1% of turnover in

addition to reimbursement of external costs incurred by TACO, if

any. Similar issue came up in the case of another group company,

namely, Tata Ficosa Automotive Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 88

taxmann.com 899 (Pune Tribunal). In that case, TACO rendered

similar services to Tata Ficosa Automotive Systems Ltd. as given

to the assessee under consideration. Payment was made by that

9 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

assessee to TACO @ 2% of Net sales. The AO made such

disallowance, which was sustained by the ld. CIT(A). When the

matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal, it directed to

delete the entire disallowance made u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act.

Another group matter in DCIT Vs. Tata Toyo Radiator Pvt. Ltd.

came up before the Tribunal in ITA No.1029/PN/2013 and others.

In that case, payment was made to TACO @2% of total turnover.

Vide its order dated 18-03-2016, the Tribunal directed to delete the

entire disallowance.

First is that the assessee did avail services from TACO. Second is

that it made payment made as quid pro quo for such services at

1.31% of sales. Payments made by other group concerns, even at a

little higher percentage than the assessee in some cases, have been

found to be reasonable by the Tribunal. When we compare the rate

of turnover at which the assessee paid to TACO for such services,

vis-à-vis that paid by other group concerns, the same turns out to

be quite reasonable and not at all excessive so as to attract the

provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Ergo, we order to delete

the addition of Rs.2,96,50,650/- made on this score. This ground is

allowed.

10 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

by the Assessing Officer. Facts apropos this issue are that the

assessee furnished report in Form 3CEB indicating six

international transactions. The AO made a reference to the

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length

Price (ALP) of such international transactions. The TPO did not

disturb the ALP determination by the assessee of any transaction

except the first international transaction of “Import wires,

terminals, connections, taps and tubes, spares and other raw

materials” with transacted value of Rs.73,10,21,926/-. The

assessee used the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method

for demonstrating that this transaction was at ALP. Rejecting the

application of the CUP, the TPO adopted the Transactional Net

Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. He

computed the assessee’s PLI (Operating Profit/Sales) from this

transaction at (-)3.78%. Considering five companies as

comparables with their average PLI of OP/Sales at 3.74%, he

proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.17,04,59,224/-. The

AO adopted this figure of transfer pricing adjustment in the draft

order and made addition for the equal sum in the final assessment

11 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

order, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the

Tribunal.

material on record. It is noticed that the dispute in the instant

appeal is only in respect of the international transaction of `Import

of raw materials etc.’ with transacted value of Rs.73.10 crore. As

against the assessee applying the CUP method, the TPO employed

TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee has not

agitated against the application of the TNMM as the most

appropriate method before the Tribunal.

Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) in terms of Article 25 of the

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India

and Japan in respect of its international transaction of import of

raw material etc. from Yazaki Corporation, Japan (YCJ), which is

a part of the overall transaction under consideration. Our attention

was drawn towards pages 6 and 7 of the paper book, which is a

copy of the order dated 10-09-2015 passed by the Competent

authority of India, reducing the amount of transfer pricing

adjustment corresponding to transactions with YCJ from

12 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

Rs.9,78,09,000/- to Rs.7,03,37,097/-, thereby allowing relief of

Rs.2,74,71,903/-. In view of the fact that the assessee has

admittedly accepted the resolution of the issue under the MAP

proceedings in respect of its international transaction with YCJ,

we countenance the addition to this extent at Rs.7,03,37,097/-.

relates to transactions of import of raw materials etc. from the

Associated Enterprises (AEs) other than YCJ, which was not part

of the MAP proceedings. The assessee has raised objection only on

two aspects of such ALP determination by the authorities, viz.,

computation of its own PLI by the TPO at (-) 3.78% and exclusion

of FCI Technology Services Ltd. from the list of comparables.

computation of its own PLI at (-) 3.78% by the TPO. The ld. AR

submitted that there are certain errors in such computation, which

should be suitably amended.

Act empowers the CBDT to make rules for the purposes of the Act.

Sub-section (2) lists certain matters in respect of which the Board

may provide for rules. Clause (h) of section 295(2) empowers the

13 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

Board to make rules providing for: `the procedure for giving effect

to the terms of any agreement for the granting of relief in respect of

double taxation or for the avoidance of double taxation which may

be entered into by the Central Government under this Act.’

Pursuant to the prescription of section 295(2)(h), rules have been

framed under part IX-C of Income-tax Rules, 1962 covering rules

44G, 44GA and 44H. Instantly, we are concerned with rule 44H.

Sub-rule (4) of rule 44H states that the effect of Resolution arrived

at under the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) shall be given by

the AO within the stipulated period, if the assessee gives his

acceptance to the resolution taken under mutual agreement

procedure; and withdraws his appeal, if any, pending on the issue

which was the subject matter for adjudication under mutual

agreement procedure. Nitty-gritty of rule 44H(4) is that when a

Resolution has been made on an issue under the MAP, which the

assessee has accepted, the same attains finality. The assessee, as a

pre-condition, has to necessarily withdraw its appeal to the extent

of the subject matter for adjudication under the MAP.

year under consideration, we find that the subject matter is

restricted to the international transaction of Import of raw material

14 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

etc. from YCJ. At the cost of repetition, we state that the assessee

reported one international transaction of “Import wires, terminals,

connections, taps and tubes, spares and other raw materials” with

transacted value of Rs.73,10,21,926/-. This transaction covers

imports from YCJ and non-YCJ AEs. The assessee and the TPO

determined PLI from such import transaction in a combined

manner. It means that such cumulative profit (loss) margin in the

PLI encompasses profit (loss) not only from imports transactions

with YCJ but also non-YCJ AEs. In fact, both separate profits

(losses) subsumed into the overall profit (loss) and as such separate

profits (losses) arising on account of import from YCJ and non-

YCJ AEs lost their separate identities. To say the least, it is not

even the case of the assessee that a separate PLI in respect of

imports from non-YCJ AEs is available. The AO made transfer

pricing adjustment of Rs.17.04 crore in respect of the international

transaction of import of raw materials both from YCJ and non-YCJ

AEs. Such a transfer pricing adjustment was made by considering

the assessee’s PLI from this consolidated international transaction

at (-) 3.78% and that of comparables at 3.74%. The Competent

Authority, in its order, has allowed relief of Rs.2.74 crore in

respect of transaction with YCJ. The ld. AR has placed on record

15 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

working of relief as per the MAP. There are 3 charts, which have

been drawn in this regard. Chart B, which is instantly relevant for

our purpose, is reproduced here as under :

Particulars Data Flag Amount in INR

Applying MAP resolution As per Final AO OP/OR (%) -378% Order As agreed in MAP Comparables margin % 1.57% (refer Note 1 below) Reduced TP Adjustment post G 12,12,70,858 MAP

Break-up of the TP adjustment into Japan AE & Other AE Adjustment pertaining to Japan AE transactions – accepted in H = (G*A)/C 7,03,37,097 MAP TP Adjustment corresponding I=G-H 5,09,33,761 to transactions with other AEs 12,12,70,858

the remaining transfer pricing adjustment as per MAP that the

assessee’s own PLI of OP/Sales as computed by the TPO at (-)

3.78% has been accepted as such. Relief has been given in the

margin of comparables, which the TPO took at 3.74% and the

Competent authorities mutually agreed to reduce it to 1.57%.

assessee assail its PLI qua international transaction of Import of

16 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

raw materials etc. from non-YCJ AEs, when the same PLI has been

accepted in MAP proceedings? Exercise of an ALP determination

under the TNMM involves two broader components, viz., PLI of

the assessee and average PLI of the comparables. In the instant

case, the TPO determined PLI of the assessee at (-) 3.78% and that

of the comparables at 3.74%. In the MAP Resolution, whereas the

PLI of the assessee has been accepted at the same level, the PLI of

the comparables has been altered. It deciphers that the assessee

accepted its own PLI determination at (-)3.78%, which is

undisputedly from the common international transaction of Import

of raw material etc. both from YCJ and non-YCJ AEs. At no

stage did the assessee ever challenge by urging to split this single

transaction of import of raw materials and its consequential PLI

into two separate transactions, one with YCJ and other with non-

YCJ AEs. Once the PLI determined by the TPO, which bears the

combined profit (loss) from transactions both with YCJ and non-

YCJ AEs has been accepted by the assessee under the MAP

Resolution even though in respect of transactions with YCJ, there

can be no question of now making any alternations to such a

combined PLI in so far as the transactions with non-YCJ AEs are

concerned. If we proceed to make any alternation to the PLI in

17 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

respect of transaction of import from non-YCJ AEs as suggested

by the ld. AR, it would frustrate the assessee’s PLI in respect of

transaction with YCJ also, which is not permissible at this stage as

the same has been accepted by the assessee in the MAP resolution.

Since there is a common computation and determination of PLI

under TNMM for all the transactions of import of raw materials,

now no challenge can be made to the correctness of such PLI for

the international transaction of import of raw materials etc. from

non-YCJ AEs. The position would have been different if the ALP

determination of the transaction of import of raw materials etc.

from YCJ had been done separately from the transaction of import

of raw materials etc. from non-YCJ AEs, in which case both the

profits would have been independent of each other and none

bearing the effect of the other. In view of the foregoing discussion,

we jettison the contention raised on behalf of the assessee.

the exclusion of FCI Technology Service Ltd. from the list of

comparables by the TPO. Before taking up this issue, we want to

reiterate that the TPO computed PLI of the assessee and

comparables at particular percentages. In MAP proceedings, the

PLI of the assessee has been accepted by the Competent authorities

18 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

and the assessee as well. However, the PLI of the comparables

determined by the TPO has been reduced from 3.74% to 1.57%. It

means that, whereas the PLI determination of the assessee by the

TPO attained finality by virtue of MAP proceedings, the PLI

determination of the comparables by the TPO has been

jeopardized. We have held supra that the PLI determination of the

assessee by the TPO is not open to challenge, which is so for

having not been altered in the MAP proceedings and accepted by

the assessee as such. However, this view does not hold good in

respect of the PLI determination of the comparables by the TPO

qua the international transaction of import from non-YCJ AEs. In

that view of the matter, it is held that the assessee can validly assail

any part of the determination of the ALP of the comparables in

respect of transaction of import of raw materials etc. from non-YCJ

AEs.

FCI Technology Services Ltd. in the list of comparables, which

was a comparable chosen by the assessee. The TPO directed to

exclude it on the ground of a persistent loss making company. He

noticed on page 14 of his order that for the A.Y.2006-07, this

company incurred loss of (-) 0.28%; for the A.Y. 2007-08 though

19 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

the assessee had claimed that this company had earned profit of

5.09%, but the PLI margin of this company was (-) 7.76%; for the

A.Y. 2008-09 this company incurred loss of (-) 22.59% in

connectors segment; and for the A.Y. 2009-10, this company

again incurred loss of (-) 40.97% in connectors segment. In the

light of such factual position, this company was held to be a

persistent loss making company and hence not comparable. The

assessee is aggrieved by exclusion of this company from the list of

comparables.

material on record, it is seen that the TPO did not dispute the

functional similarity of this company with the assessee company.

He however, directed to remove it from the list of comparables

only on the ground of persistent losses. The ld. AR stated that the

TPO went wrong in noting some figures of losses. We have gone

through the margins computation of FCI Technology Services Ltd.,

a copy of which has been placed at page 442 of the paper book for

the year under consideration and part of which is available at page

484 of the paper book for the immediately preceding assessment

year, i.e. 2008-09. It is apparent that for the A.Y. 2006-07, this

company incurred loss at (-) 0.28% which has been correctly

20 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

recorded by the TPO. The dispute is about recording loss for the

A.Y. 2007-08. The TPO has noticed that the PLI margin of this

company stood at (-) 7.76%. We have gone through page 484 of

the paper book for the A.Y. 2008-09, which shows that as against

the PLI (-) 7.76% noted by the TPO, the correct PLI is 5.08%.

Inadvertently, the TPO considered the figure which falls under the

next column relevant for the A.Y. 2008-09. Thus, it is overt that

for A.Y. 2007-08 this company had PLI of 5.08%. For the A.Y.

2008-09, there was loss of (-) 22.60% in the connectors segment

which was followed by loss of (-) 40.97% for the year under

consideration.

Sachs (India) Securities (P) Ltd. (2016) 290 CTR 236 (Bom.)

considered a similar issue of persistent loss making companies. In

that case, the TPO excluded Capital Trust Ltd. on the ground of

persistent loss making company. The Tribunal included this

company by noticing that it was not a persistent loss making

company as for the A.Y. 2005-06 it made profit although it was

loss for subsequent two years, namely, A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Considering the factual position obtaining in the instant case, it is

seen that though FCI Technology Services Ltd. suffered loss for

21 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

the A.Y. 2008-09 and the year under consideration but, in fact,

there was profit for the A.Y. 2007-08 at 5.08%. As this company

earned profit of 5.08% for the A.Y. 2007-08, it ceases to be a

persistent loss making company in so far as the A.Y. 2009-10 is

concerned, since one of the three years is in profit though the other

two years are in loss.

by the DRP on page 12 in which it has returned a categorical

finding that FCI Technology Services Ltd. started manufacturing

connectors during the A.Y. 2008-09 and there was no

manufacturing of connectors during the A.Y. 2007-08, for which

the assessee is claiming that this company has positive PLI.

relevant for the A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2008-09. Page 467 of the

paper book for the assessment year under consideration gives

details of stock, production and sales for the year ending

31-12-2007 which has opening stock of connectors as well.

Similar is the position for the preceding year as well, which depicts

that there was opening stock of connectors. In that view of the

matter, it becomes evident that this company was already into

22 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

manufacturing of connectors, which product has been considered

as similar by the DRP. Ex consequenti, the relevant contrary

finding recorded by the DRP about that company not engaged in

manufacturing of connectors during the A.Y. 2007-08 is, therefore,

not correct. As FCI Technology Services Ltd. is not a persistent

loss making company and further the functional similarity has not

been disputed by the TPO, we order to include this company in the

list of comparables.

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of all the transactions

including non-international transactions.

the relevant material on record, we find that no exception can be

taken to the argument of the ld. AR that the transfer pricing

addition should be restricted only to the international transactions

and not the non-international transactions of the assessee. First

sub-section of section 92 of the Act, which is the first section of

the Chapter X, provides in unambiguous terms that : `Any income

arising from an international transaction shall be computed having

regard to the arm’s length price’. The Chapter extends its

23 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

application only to the international transactions, which term has

been defined in section 92B to mean : `a transaction between two

or more associated enterprises…’. Thus it is patent that the

transfer pricing provisions apply only to the transactions between

the associated enterprises and not to unrelated or non-associated

enterprises. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Tara

Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 032-MumHC (Bom):

(2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) has held that sections 92A and 92B

require transfer pricing adjustment to be done only in respect of the

transactions entered into between the assessee with its AEs and not

with the non-AEs. Similar view has been reiterated again by the

Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp

Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.). As the view

adopted by the AO does not accord with that of the Hon’ble

jurisdictional High Court, we are disinclined to accept the same.

direct that the transfer pricing addition should be restricted to the

international transactions and not the non-international

transactions. This ground is thus allowed.

24 ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

matter to the AO/TPO for reworking out the ALP of the

international transaction of “Import wires, terminals, connections,

taps and tubes, spares and other raw materials” afresh in

accordance with our above observations and directions.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 11th July, 2019 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The CIT/IT/TP, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “सी” / DR ‘C’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.621/PUN/2014 Yazaki India Private Limited

Date 1. Draft dictated on 08-07-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 10-07-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *